Damn. Sometimes I really hate being right.
In what is probably the most Microsoft-fan-boy post so far from Miguel de Icaza – one which he signs off literally “drooling” over Microsoft’s latest Silverlight – Mr. de Icaza has an interesting new mission:
Now that this technology is available, perhaps it is a good time to start a movement to create a suite of Silverlight-based desktop applications.
[...]
For the Moonlight team, this means that there is a lot of work ahead of us to bring every Silverlight 3 and 4 feature. I think I speak for the whole Mono team when I say that this is exciting, fascinating, challenging and feels like we just drank a huge energy boost drink.
I’ve said many times before that Team Mono indirectly promotes Microsoft, but this here is direct and unambigious promotion of closed-source, proprietary Microsoft technology by the head of Team Mono in the name of the “whole Mono Team”.
Team Mono and their apologists can’t hide behind their usual smoke and mirrors here: there is no partial ECMA standardization to quibble over what bits are “safe” – no Silverlight bits are safe; there is no “Community Promises” to worry about if you are “covered” – if it ain’t Microsoft or Novell, it ain’t covered; and there’s no arguing that “at least it is open-source” – there is nothing Open Source about Silverlight; nothing to hide behind but base sycophany:
There are many other great features in Silverlight 4, but none as important as Silverlight becoming a universal runtime for the CLR. This is a revolution.
So there you have it, folks. Mr. de Icaza speaks for Team Mono in direct support of the Microsoft Silverlight “Revolution” – encouraging development with Closed Source, Proprietary Software. People have been constantly raising flags that Novell / Mr. de Icaza / Team Mono have lost sight of Free Software as they grow ever closer to Microsoft, and this is a startlingly black mark proving warnings come true.
#1 by Lex on November 25th, 2009
At least the pretences are over. Maybe now the games of deceptions and denial will end.
I would love the mono apologist to comment on this one. Of course they would like everyone to forget their old arguments that mono is open source and helps linux and patents are not a problem and there is no push from microsoft to infest the open source software with their proprietary code and everyone who think otherwise is an irrational hater.
One of the problems with twisting the truth is that the history of mono lies and deceptions with comments of mono-apologists will remain documented on this site. And the more this story develops the more these lies will become apparent.
#2 by Jason on November 25th, 2009
It is funny. I’ve often said the reason I came down on the skeptical of Novell/Mono side was because of the dishonesty I perceived in their arguments.
It always seemed to be like true intentions would slip out, soon follow by furious back-peddling and hand-waving on how what was said was not actually what was meant. “We aren’t trying to do what you are accusing us of” was the basic defense.
As time went on, Team Mono seems to have grown less disingenous about their motives, and shifted the argument to “We might be trying to do what you are accusing us of, but it’s not as bad as you are making it out to be”
It’s instructive to me to think about how people would have reacted if say, Mr. de Icaza had made this same announcement along with his joining the board of the Microsoft CodePlex foundation on the same day the Novell/Microsoft deal was announced.
Companies often count on simply wearing people down. That’s why a refrain I return to is that the Novell deal is just as offensive today as it was the day it was signed. And it’s why I never fully accepted even the weak rationalizations Team Mono offered up in defense of all their pro-Microsoft activity.
I knew it would continue to expand and grow as critics tired and they became emboldened. Look at where we are now and imagine how people would have reacted to similar pronouncements just 3 years ago. Then imagine what will be excreted from Camp Novell in the future.
I will not be surprised one bit to see Novell advocating a Microsoft-produced closed source version of Silverlight. I can tell you this, I am willing to wager a reasonable amount that Mr. de Icaza will be fawning over some Microsoft technology, advocating its adoption, downplaying its problems, trying to implement a copy (or working directly on it for Microsoft), and still accusing people of “hate”.
Any takers?
#3 by Richard on November 26th, 2009
Actually – no. The attitude shift I’ve seen is as follows:
1. “Let’s license this stuff.”
2. “Yay! Ever better than (1): we’ve got a promise that they won’t sue anyone! Let’s go wild!”
3. “Wait … people hate us for (2)?”
4. “… don’t worry, after a while they’ll see that this is working out…”
5. “Screw the haters. And screw licensing, and going through channels, and all of that. They’ll hate us no matter what we do. Let’s just implement the technology, and ignore them.”
All of the argument and debate happened at (2) and (3), with some spillover into (4). Then they got tired; then they got jaded.
The fact is that Novell, and Miguel de Icaza in particular, seems to simply not care about the minority opinion any more. It’s not worth their while to respond. Now, and in 5 years, and in 10 years, people will be using the technology anyway, and as time goes on and nothing bad happens, they think that your opinions will get more and more irrelevant. They’re probably correct
.
The reason I’m pointing this out to you is because it seems that you think they’re at (4). They’re not. They’re at (5), and they’ll stay at (5), because that works well for them, and it works well for the developer base (including me) that uses their technology…
But all this aside, have you seen Silverlight 4? Just leave aside who developed it — cast it away from your mind. From a purely technical and development perspective, it’s amazingly nice. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that matches it at the ease-of-development per graphical-sweetness point that it’s at. Miguel’s right: this is revolutionary stuff. Let’s hope that it takes off, and is picked up by more developers. I’d love to see some seriously snazzy Linux apps. Compiz already blows Windows 7 out of the water for graphical effects, but we’re stuck with GUI design from the 80’s. Now’s our opportunity to lead the way in application GUI design as well!
#4 by theodor on November 27th, 2009
Wait a moment… you want to be ahead of Windows in GUI design by using Silverlight?
That would be like Implying that “Compiz blows Windows 7″ means that “Silverlight on Linux will blow Silverlight on Windows”…
Anyway, FOSS is constantly and increasingly eating away marketshare from Microsoft, despite their attitutde which you attribute to Novell: that “they don’t care about minorities and in 10 years, people will be using their technology anyway”… I wouldn’t bet on this being as certain in the next decade as it was in the nineties.
Silverlight 4 might be a fine framework (haven’t tried it), but using it is a) still just playing catch up and b) disregarding serious implications many of us find important.
I do believe that it’s good, but to be honest, your (and that of a handful of other Silverlight 4 proponents) over-enthusiastic “drooling” makes me look at it with suspicion.
#5 by Richard on November 27th, 2009
I see no problem with this? In fact, I’m hoping that it’s true. I’m hoping for graphically-slick, usable, away-from-gray-buttons interfaces that will show users just how advanced and awesome Linux can be. When I set up an Ubuntu box, I customize Compiz, and people looking at my machine are amazed. They ask me how they can get the same thing. But effects will only take you so far, if you’re sticking with plain-UI-gray. I hope that we can take the next step, and really show the whole world that we’re innovators of the best type, forging ahead in all areas — including application GUI layout and design.
To be fair, it’s a bit more nuanced than that. People go to Linux, they try an Apple, they head to Windows. They use one system at work, another at home, another when they’re visiting the parents or on the road. And sometimes they replace a Windows or OSX system with Linux, and sometimes they go back to Windows or the OSX. They should be free to do this. As developers, we should make it easy for them to use our apps no matter what platform they’re on. This is to do with respecting their choice. In the end, it is difficult to say that one is constantly eating away at another. There’s a large amount of flux between all of them.
I agree with (a), absolutely. We’ve got some way to catch up with SL4, but I’m very confident that we’ll get there — and, quite possibly, surpass it. Seeing the effort that’s gone into Mono, I can’t help but have such confidence. On (b), well, open-source isn’t free software. I can appreciate and respect those differences. If you find yourself to be leaning more on the free software side, fine, don’t use it. It’s when one discourages others from using it that I get antsy … hey, let ‘em make up their own minds!
#6 by theodor on November 27th, 2009
Well, I hoped it was clear that I regard this point as invalid.
Long version: Compiz wasn’t able to surpass other window/effects managers because it used software from those exact other managers. If Compiz was built into Windows and the plugin API were open for all developers, I’m pretty sure the FOSS version would be lagging behind in terms of plugins and general awesomeness.
Silverlight on the other hand is Microsoft-controlled and the Windows version will probably (then again, hopefully not) be always a bit ahead. How exactly do you expect the GNU/Linux version to surpass the Windows version, given that there are… well… a huge lot more Windows developers writing applications on that framework?
But nevermind, I’m just trying to explain that I see a logical fallacy in your argument
Which is quite a different situation from 7-8 years ago, when the fluctuation was mainly between Windows with a blue wallpaper and Windows with a green wallpaper…
In my perception, GNU/Linux adoption is soaring. Now that’s just subjective measure, but take a look at the news and events of the past few years: lots of mobile devices openly advertising that they are built on the Linux kernel, RedHat having awesome growth rates, Ubuntu slowly becoming ubiquitous… This year, Ubuntu is the only (!) officially supported operating system at my university’s department.
For about two years, I’ve been helping one person almost each month migrate to Ubuntu (and I mean just helping, not “converting”).
As a developer, I do want my programs to be run by as many people as possible. And I do give OSX and sometimes also Windows support to friends… but hey, I don’t think that you’re completely unpolitical/unemotional about all this either, are you?
#7 by Richard on November 28th, 2009
Unless they use COM+ integration, or P/Invokes — both of which are surprisingly rare in the .Net world — it should be quite portable to Linux. That way, any platform that can run Mono can also run best-of-breed apps, no matter who makes them. You can switch your OS, and take your favorite apps with you. On Linux we get an entirely new set of apps that previously wouldn’t even be usable by us (unless under Wine), and devs get cross-platform for almost nothing. Pretty good deal!
No, I’m not. I’ve got Windows 7, but I prefer the Linux environment (except for gfx driver support … come on, Xorg, I expect more from you!). Windows is better for developing .Net apps in at present, simply because of the F#+XAML support given by the dev tools … there’s nothing that compares to Kaxaml at present. What I’m really hoping for is the ability to create on one platform, and then seamlessly port to another so that I can run my apps on both. Of course, if users want to run them on Windows, fine by me; and if it’s Linux that floats their boat, so much the better! But I’m not going to be one who reduces the cross-platform nature of my apps so that I can give them a push one way or another.
#8 by Anirudh on November 28th, 2009
Richard,
From one perspective, I’m not too sure that Silverlight/moonlight might be the way to go. By giving developers access to free-form design you’re inviting really really potentially ugly designs.
In GTK/QT/wxWidgets/etc the standard widgets, themes and graphical consistency probably introduce a huge benefit from the usability perspective – tabs on one app look the same on all apps as long as you use GtkNotebook. Now make the tabs yellow on one app and orange on another and the user is confused.
The argument that a better tool that’s centered around design will make all developers build apps is like saying that everyone will make better pictures given photoshop or build better webpages given dreamweaver.
The counter-argument is that someone good enough to build decent interfaces, websites and photographs will find it much harder without the appropriate tools to do it.
My concern is – do you want to trust developers with this much flexibility? What would be the ratio of high-quality apps to the ones that aren’t as good. I was originally annoyed by GTK’s constraints like boxes, and other layout issues, but now I see that leads to perfect consistency, unlike WPF or Winforms which gives you a canvas and tells you to go crazy. If I proceeded to do everything via cairo/pango it would look very odd indeed.
Adobe flash which was the proven way to make rich applications was painful and led to some really ugly interfaces (the most awesome of which is zombo.com). Adobe released flex that brought a XAML like syntax to put widgets and automate it with ActionScript, thus allowing developers to quickly build applications for the web, albeit with a significantly decreased degree of control.
If it were up to me (and be thankful it isn’t) – I’d say it would be great to write an app with an embedded webkit display which would benefit from existing standards and techniques. The business logic must be written in a sensible language by hooking delegates into events that are fired from within the GUI – instead of calling javascript, the host application’s code is to be written.
I’d actually embarked upon such a project during a hackathon by making an app framework where a python gtk app had webkit embedded and also had a django server running serving requests with the naive in-built server. In essence, one could ship an app to the user to do complex python-based processing while having database abstraction and a proven MVC framework – all on the user’s local machine. This also meant catching all post requests and routing it via the framework which was too much work so the project was abandoned. There are simpler ways to make pretty apps imo.
But ^(Silver|Moon)light$ does have a lot of really neat controls like a rich text editor, image galleries, zoom/pan controls for a region, etc, which are lacking in the basic GTK widget set. Why do I have to try hard to make a nice text editor component in my app?
tl;dr – The easel doesn’t make the artist.
#9 by Richard on November 28th, 2009
Hi Anirudh,
I totally agree with just about everything you say: you don’t want to give all developers that sort of flexibility, because not all developers are good at that. But here’s the workflow: the design guys make up the interface, complete with animations and transitions and whatever. With XAML, that’s easy! And then the dev guys just hook in the back-end logic. I’ve done this before, and it makes it easy to create something slick and functional. You’ll see the same process with a Pylons+Genshi workflow: the design guys make the template with rubbish data, and then the devs hook stuff in behind it and replace the rubbish data with useful functionality. Leverages the strengths of both of them.
Right now, in the Linux world, we have a lot of projects that say “hey, you’re not a developer, so … errr … maybe you can make artwork”. Let’s take that a step further. Let’s say “you’re not a developer, but you’re creative and artistic and can make very usable UIs — so, go wild! Give us your XAML templates, and we’ll pick the best one”. Not only would that leverage off the crowd-sourcing that is a strength of open-source, it would get the arty people much more interested in the dev process since they’ll no longer be relegated to livening up the backgrounds of gray-button interfaces. Win-win all around!
#10 by theodor on November 27th, 2009
*urgs* strange formatting there…
About the last point: you’re right, people should make up their minds themselves.
What gets me is when they make uninformed/uneducated choices, which I think is happening far too often when “non-techy” people enter the IT world.
#11 by Jason on November 27th, 2009
Richard,
Thank you for the detailed reply.
The problem I see with your outline of the “attitude shift” is that Moonlight is not covered under the same sort of “protections” that Mono is, yet Team Mono promotes it equally (if not more as of recently) as it does Mono.
That is the “slippery slope” that I am describing in my “less disingenous” outline, and one of the major issues I have with Team Mono. They will not be content with whatever position they have now, and do not care to get things right before promoting the “next thing”.
This is one of the major problems with the Novell/Microsoft deal – by setting themselves up with exclusive “protections” from Microsoft – they divide the community. You can either use Novell, or go without. I see that as contrary to the principles of Free Software. It was a small-ish problem in Mono, it is a large-ish problem in Moonlight, and I expect it to be a huge-ish problem in whatever Novell’s next Microsoft-cloning project is.
This is because the output of the Novell/Microsoft deal has not been moving Microsoft in a more Open direction. It has been moving Novell is a more Closed direction. Comparing the terms of Mono to Moonlight is clear and overwhelming on this point, I think.
I will agree – no matter the exact history – they are somewhere in the general area of your #5, because I certainly see less and less lip service applied to Free and Open Source principles and basically its now just de Icaza straight up saying “Use Silverlight”.
Let us posit for the sake of argument that you are correct and Silverlight 4 is the bee’s knees and the most incredibly awesome development framework laid down for all enternity. That still doesn’t justify abandoning or perverting Free Software principles.
Counterpoint One
Consider this: At best, Silverlight 4 is the best development platform available right now. (I certainly do not believe this, but let’s just allow it in order to make a point). Unless of course, someone wishes to make the argument that Silverlight 4 is the best development platform possible?
At some point in the past, there was also some “best development platform available right now”. That platform, whatever it was, has been eclipsed. This has happened many times over. If every time this happened, Free Software developers chased the “new shiney” with no regard to how those tools aligned with Free Software principles, where would that lead?
It is funny to me then, that Mr. de Icaza uses arguments like “its just software, no need to hate”, yet does not see the argument “its just software, no need to compromise your principles”.
Counterpoint Two
Compiz blows Windows 7 out of the water because Compiz is not a taillights-chasing carbon copy of whatever half-assed windows manager/compositor that Microsoft uses.
It is funny to me then, that the argument “We can only lead the way by following Microsoft” is advanced.
#12 by Richard on November 27th, 2009
Jason,
Thanks for your response — it’s given me some food for thought!
I agree; hopefully, this will be fixed. I think that Miguel responded to you here about that. I know from personal experience that, no matter how much agreement there may be amongst technical people, you can wait and wait and wait and wait once it goes through to legal!
Well, not really. There have been some significant open-source moves by Microsoft recently. To be fair, we could talk about how-significant-is-significant, but what’s clear to me is that ten years ago, these sorts of moves weren’t even imagined to possibly be on any sort of cards. Even five years ago, I wouldn’t have imagined that Microsoft would push jQuery as the JS framework of choice! So, there’s been change, and I see it as good change, in the right direction. Let’s encourage that, and see where it goes. I have it on good authority that Don Syme is trying to release F# and the Power-Pack under MsPL, for example; I, for one, hope that he succeeds in pushing that through their legal department!
And Miguel and the rest will, undoubtedly, keep pushing for more open terms. Let’s hope that they get those, too.
Well, it led to KDE, for starters. They chased QT, and in time, QT was made free. It also led to Java apps when Java wasn’t Free. Right now, software developers are chasing Google Wave, which isn’t Free. I understand that your question is rhetorical, but if I may take it in a more literal sense, I’d say that chasing the new shiney makes vendors aware of a whole new market — and, eventually, might even lead to the vendor’s technology being released to the community under good licensing terms.
That latter argument holds no water for an open-source supporter (like myself). It’s only relevant for free software people, since the principles which would call Mono unethical aren’t open-source principles.
In point of fact, it blows Windows 7 out of the water because it’s innovative and takes advantage of the separations that are built into X-Windows. You’ll notice that one of the appearance modes of the Shift Switcher, and possibly Window Previews, might have been borrowed. Expose is definitely familiar to users of another OS
. That’s fine. Compiz doesn’t reject UI ideas because of where they come from, any more than it is limited by those ideas. They’ll chase whatever tail-lights they appreciate, and switch on their own headlights, too. I see that kind of thinking in apps like Gnome Do, and it impresses the heck out of me.
Nobody’s making that argument. What people say is that we should follow the .Net framework technologies for cross-platform and interoperability purposes; but Mono was the first to come up with the idea of packages, and the first to push a desktop-oriented *light, and the first to get multi-surface rendering via Cairo, and the first to launch a framework on the iPhone. Those are just a few of the firsts. To claim that they’re blind followers, or only/always chasing tail-lights, is simply incorrect at this point. There’s far too much evidence to the contrary.
I think that people do make the argument “If Microsoft comes up with a great technology, let’s use that”. I see no problem with that. As a developer, I don’t like being restricted by politics. If it’s good technology, it’s good technology — whether the source is Apple, Open-Source, Microsoft, IBM, or any other entity or organization. Let’s appreciate it and move forward with it, as far as we can.
#13 by Jason on November 27th, 2009
Richard,
If your ultimate position boils down to “I like this tool and intend to us it and don’t really care about the politics around it”, then there’s not much to debate.
I adopt a similar stance to say – food I eat – but there are some people who are very political about it. That being said, I wouldn’t bust into a vegan meeting and start calling them all “zealots” either.
I don’t expect the average Windows/Mac developer to have a problem with Mono/Moonlight (or to really care much at all), because the average Windows developer doesn’t know Freeware from Free Software.
I do expect the average Linux user to care, because a signficant (but not exclusive – and sadly shrinking) factor in Linux use is Free-as-in-Freedom.
My arguments, then, are in that context. If you care nothing for Free-as-in-Freedom, they probably aren’t very compelling. (Straight line left open for the haters)
#14 by Richard on November 27th, 2009
Jason,
Yes, I think you have it. It’s been good to discuss this with you, and I trust that I haven’t called you a “zealot” or any other nasty names by implication; please accept my apologies if it’s come across that way.
The times, they are a-changing. We once needed RMS’ hardline stance, as we once needed the Black Panthers. But now, with open-source ascendant and a software ecosystem that values sharing … are they as relevant? I’ll be interested to see how this particular Hegelian dialectic works out!
#15 by Lex on November 27th, 2009
I’m sorry Richard, but you sound like a car salesman spinning and promoting the goods while using misdirection to hide legitimate concerns.
First of all, I am not buying what you are selling. And finally, after seeing how skilfully you twisting any criticisms of microsoft into advertising their goods I find it hard to believe you are commenting on this site for free. I must say you are very good at it. Unfortunately you are TOO GOOD to be an average guy making comments. You may want to consider tuning it down.
#16 by Richard on November 27th, 2009
Lex,
What do you want? My credit card details? A CV? Pictures of the wife and kids? What would it take to satisfy you about who I am?
Not that I’m going to be providing you with my personal details, but I want to ask because your attitude towards me is unwarranted and overly-suspicious. Do you think that a job must be boring? Or that nobody must appreciate a particular technology, just because of where it comes from? It is attitudes such as yours that have held back amazing languages like Haskell (the source is “too academic”) for years. To you, everyone MUST hate a particular technology, so somebody must be paying me.
I say this as advice to you: you will find that, when you take people at their face value, then they respond better to you, and a good discussion can ensue. And when you tell people that you mistrust their motives because of YOUR preconceptions — and not anything else! — then you should realise that the problem is with you, and not with them. How can I have a discussion with you if you tell me at the outset that you think I am a liar? Could you have a discussion with someone who says this to you? It is not possible.
#17 by Dan Serban on November 27th, 2009
@Richard,
It would help your credibility a lot if you simply stated that you have no industry affiliations whatsoever with either Microsoft or Novell.
#18 by Richard on November 27th, 2009
I have no industry affiliations whatsoever with either Microsoft or Novell.
#19 by Lex on November 28th, 2009
In all this discussion about compiz and how windows 7 is just better for .Net development some important aspects were overlooked.
You make it seem as if silverlight is necessary to make linux with compiz look better. What about KDE 4.3? It has great looking widgets and has a build in analog of compiz. What about continual effort to bring kde envirnment to other platfroms (yes, windows included). Of course there is still some work to be done, just like with silverlight. However writing for kde you get cross platform applications that depend only on free software stack without proprietary components in between, without questionable licenses.
Is silverlight the only way to achieve slick applications with cross platform capability? By a long shot NO. You have kde and java as two technologies that do the same, You would have to put some effort into java look and feel to make it look more consistent on linux, but the windows and mac parts are already done.
Now, I am not making any claims or requiring any proof. I am simply stating my opinion based on reading your comments. Many of your posts feel like marketing flyers that barely touch the subject under discussion. You hail microsoft products any time you get a chance. You want to be taken seriously? Stop advertising microsoft so much and stick to the topic under discussion.
#20 by Richard on November 28th, 2009
With respect, KDE and Java have a heck of a long way to go before they can even begin to compare to the ease-of-development of XAML. Suggest you take a look at WPF for a good idea of where Silverlight is headed: here’s a showcase app, with downloadable source. Look at the XAML files. Think to yourself, “how much effort would I have to put in to get something like this in KDE or Java?”. Shudder (length of shudder may vary). And then you might see why Miguel de Icaza thinks that this is a cross-platform revolution.
No, Silverlight is not the only way. There’s Java, there’s Python, there’s KDE, there’s TCL/Tk, there’s REBOL, there’s AIR, etc. But does it strike the ease-of-development/performance/maintainability/cross-platform trade-off at just the right spot? Absolutely.
#21 by Lex on December 18th, 2009
Java is just a platform, it runs many languages. JavaScript, Ruby, Python, Scala, Groovy from the top of my head. So, to make it clear, are you suggesting that all of these languages are much harder to work with than XAML?! That is a very broad claim that may be your subjective opinion but is impossible to prove. So please make it clear this your opinion and nothing more.
I was watching this tv show the other day. One of the main characters needs to put on some music, and be quick about it. So he is asking his friend: “can I borrow your player”. The friend says: “sure I’ll go get my zoon… … …” The main character replies in disgust: “You have a zoon?! oO” His friend continues: “Just kidding, ill go grab my ipod”
The moral is: zune is not cool. Well… let me bring you the news: neither is the silverlight. It is just one of many technologies and languages available. And silverlight is neither the most popular nor cross platform. So thanx, but no thanx… I am not going to waste my time installing silverlight just for the demo app… because it is totally useless otherwise, since everyone uses flash or java.
#22 by Richard on December 20th, 2009
No. I’m suggesting that all of these languages have just about nothing in common with XAML. XAML is an XML-based language user interfaces and interaction. You might as well claim that any of the languages you’ve mentioned is a replacement for HTML.
When I start choosing my implementation languages on the basis of “coolness” rather than actual technical merit, I’ll let you know.
A few days ago, a version of Moonlight with a superset of 2.0-features came out; I’m expecting a 3.0-compatible release in a few months. We’re using 3.0 right now, and may upshift to 4.0 if it looks like cross-platform compatibility will be possible at the time of release.
As for not installing Silverlight, fine, that’s your choice. Good fortune to you. But don’t make the mistake of thinking it’s “totally useless”: people said that about both Flash and Java applets in the past, and time has proven them incorrect.
#23 by Julian on November 29th, 2009
Honestly, all I see is a guy passionate about a technology because he thinks it’s awesome (and I think he’s right) and wants it to become more widespread. You have to put a lot of spin on that to make it into something negative. He’s a developer, a technologist, yet you spin his enthusiasm as something political rather than technological.
I greatly respect open source figures like de Icaza and Torvalds that have a more pragmatic attitude. Someone like de Icaza just wants all the Cool Stuff out there to run on his favorite OS. The technology is the primary concern here, licenses and patents come secondary. And that’s how it should be, as a user I couldn’t care less about Free Software. All I care about is Good Software. Currently, I’m pretty happy writing this post on Mozilla Firefox, with an instance of Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 open, while listening to music on Mozilla Songbird, all running on Microsoft Windows 7. Call me a slave to Microsoft, whatever, I don’t really care. I’m pretty happy as is, the grass isn’t really greener on the other side, but I’m glad for my neighbours that they have grass too and I support any improvements to their grass, whilst occasionally lying on it for the situations where it’s the best grass.
Personally, I’d be pretty thrilled by Moonlight and lets face it, what other alternatives for RIA does the FOSS movement offer or support? I can’t imagine you’re big fans of Flash and HTML 5 is a joke, or it will be when it’s done in 2015, which is only 10 years late and still inadequate. I’d say: embrace Moonlight.
PS: I find Compiz Fusion effects to be pretty tacky. They tend to grab too much attention without improving user experience much of even slightly hindering it (like the wobbly windows effect that makes text unreadable through texture aliasing artifacts when dragging them). I like subtlety, Compiz isn’t subtle, it’s Las Vegas.
#24 by theodor on November 30th, 2009
Not to sound rude, but do you have a clue what you’re talking about?
Miguel de Icaza is not a developer anymore. His job is managing projects, affiliations, writing statements and representing his employers/projects. He doesn’t write much code, like Linus Torvalds. He is a politician in the computer business world, like many other leader figures.
What we hear from him (and from any other corporate spokesman) is _not_ innocent enthusiasm, but the agenda of his financial backers. Mind you, that’s absolutely not “evil” or anything in that direction… it’s the way the show runs.
But claiming it’s not about politics is a bit naive.
We have to disagree here, and you cannot speak for all users. For example, after explaining the difference to her, my girlfriend does care about Free Software
I’m happy it’s working well for you, and I do not want to dictate what anyone else has to use, just as I don’t want anyone to tell me what to use. However, I do want to voice my opinion on what should be used in which case, based on the costs and benefits. And for frameworks/toolkits, the costs of a nonfree implementation usually outweight the benefits in the long term. (not for the owner of the proprietary implementation, of course)
We managed quite well without Silverlight until now, haven’t we? Sure there’s room for improvement, but it still remains to be seen if it does make enough of a difference. So far, not.
I’m doubtful that Silverlight 4 will lead to vastly superior web apps that make users flock to them in hordes.
And I’m curious about the future development of HTML5. Badmouthing alternatives won’t prove your point.
This crosses the border to troll land… just like Windows 7 is completely unusable, you know? Because after I boot into it, I absolutely have to open every single application available in the start menu. There goes my RAM, and it takes half an eternety before I can start working. Yet I really have to enable all options available anywhere. All Windows 7’s fault… completely unusable I say.
;P
On a more serious note, my Compiz setup _is_ more subtle than the default effects in Windows 7 (none of that obtrusive taskbar previews, for a start), yet gives me quite an usability boost (scale, desk wall/workspace management, zoom, ondemand transparency, animated focus, window rules) and still any part of Las Vegas is just a few clicks away if I feel like it.
#25 by Julian on December 1st, 2009
OK, I should have said “Miguel de Icaza is a developer at heart“. And I do think that he is, after all, he did start Mono for the reasons I stated, and there was no financial pressure to that because well, he started it on his own accord.
I never implied I was speaking for anyone but myself.
Of course you can do without, but the fact that it’s better at some things seems like a compelling reason for using it when it fits your needs, no?
On Compiz: my reasoning is that it was claimed that Compiz is a superior window manager to whatever Windows uses. That led me to thinking what made that so and all I could think of was that it had more effects, and that I find those wobbly and bouncy windows to be pretty tacky.
#26 by Jason on November 30th, 2009
You could just have started and stopped there.
I think this mindset is absolutely selfish, short-sighted and dangerous, but it’s not the point I’m arguing on this blog.
I’m not arguing Free Software is an important concept – that is a given for me – I’m arguing that this particular group of so-called pro-Free Software people are engaged in activities that harm more than help Free Software in general and Linux (among other projects) in specific.
If you don’t care about Free Software, then, as I said earlier to Richard, I hardly expect you to care if Free Software is injured.
The “all I care about is Good Software” seems a bit to me like saying “all I care about is the trains run on time”, but whatever.
#27 by Julian on December 1st, 2009
When I say I don’t care about Free Software it means that:
- I don’t care when a bad piece of software is free software. It’s meaningless.
- I don’t care when a good piece of software is proprietary, as long as it still benefits me.
I’ll happily use free software like Firefox, because it’s good, not because it’s free. Free software isn’t a goal of its own to me.
#28 by saulgoode on November 30th, 2009
Pragmatism only obtains meaning when goals are considered. You view Mr de Icaza’s attitude as “more pragmatic” because it aligns more closely with your own goals (i.e., just wanting to run Cool Stuff). For someone such as myself who wishes to avoid having to use unencumbered formats and non-Free software on my favorite OS, his attitude should be considered far from “pragmatic”.
The alternative to RIA is FOSS. There is no need for running virtual machines which execute pseudo-code if the information being processed is available in open, unencumbered formats. The fact that you are provided the source code to the applications needed to access and process the information — and empowered to modify it as necessary — permits you to port the application to any appropriate platform.
The way to provide a rich Internet experience is not by permitting websites to download “rich Internet applications” to my computer and execute those applications to access the data, but to provide the information in a Free format which applications already installed on my machine can access. The solution is not to find better ways to access information locked away in proprietary formats, but to never place imprison the information in the first place.
#29 by Julian on December 1st, 2009
No, it is more pragmatic. Pragmatic in the sense that Icaza has a certain set of ideals that he is willing to compromise to achieve his intended goal more effectively. You are idealistic, not willing to use proprietary software even when it offers an advantage, fair enough, but pragmatism isn’t a subjective term.
On the second point: you seem to have the impression that RIA and free information are in some sort of juxtaposition. How does the presence of a RIA environment exclude the presence of free information? Can you give me a reason why it’s not possible to write a Silverlight or Flash app that displays data from Wikipedia or that renders a ODF file, or plays an Ogg Vorbis song?
I’m not quite sure how the openness of data removes the need for a rich application that displays it? Or why you want that information to be accessed by a program installed on your machine, when there’s a reason why you made it a webbased app in the first place? I need a webbased rich environment, so there is a need for “running virtual machines which execute pseudo-code” (I’m not sure how Silverlight being a VM that runs bytecode is relevant, but OK) because the alternative (HTML+CSS+JS) is not adequate for all situations.
Neither do I know why openness of information is always desired. What if my business needs a RIA for its business processes?
Can you please explain how there’s a relevant relation between RIA and open information?
#30 by saulgoode on December 1st, 2009
No. It is still subjective, only the supposed “ideals” are different. I can just as easily say that I am compromising my ideal of running all the “Cool Stuff” in order to achieve my intended goal more effectively.
There is no need for “rich” applications if my computer can process the information directly. There is no need for a gate if there is no fence.
My point is I don’t want webbased applications in the first place.
#31 by Daniel H on December 16th, 2009
Its good that RMS is on them and really, more people should pick up on his example and complain about things like codeplex, mono and such.
I think the real goal is the GPL licensing that seems to be the biggest thorn in Microsofts eye. Especially GPLv3 that makes any open source licensed with it completely untouchable for MS thanks to the patent rules.
Mono is just a sideshow that idiots like Novell, Miquel and other minions plays along in. Its sole purpose was just for MS to be able to lie and say dotnet was platform agnostic like Java.
I sadly work with Novell products and the only ones that gives constant grief is the ones made in dotnet/mono. Go figure.
#32 by Jason on December 16th, 2009
Daniel,
Thank you for your comments!
I agree with you that the GPL is a big thorn, which I think is partially the cause of a lot of the anti-GPL messaging. It suits MS (and Novell) very well to downplay the GPLv3.
In fact it would be quite difficult for MS/Novell to get behind the GPLv3 considering much of it was specifically written to prevent the sort of deals they engage in!